<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Deconstructing Tarantino
Review: Dana Polan does an excellent job of breaking down the phenomenon of Pulp Fiction by examining it both textually and culturally, and in doing so, brings the runaway success of Pulp Fiction and the apparent "God-liness" of Tarantino back down to Earth. The book is a quick read, informative, stimulating, and fun. Having been ambivalent about this film since its release, Dana Polan hits the nail on the head about exactly why I both love and hate this film. At any rate, if you are at all interested about Pulp Fiction (whether positively or negatively), I urge you to give this a read. And, the section on the cyber-world of Pulp Fiction is, at the very least, a humorous added bonus.
Rating: 
Summary: Unworthy of its subject.
Review: There's pulp fiction, then there's worse--namely, thin, obvious, breezy commentary that pretends to be scholarly, or at least "academic." This very slight volume wastes time talking about websites dedicated to the film, then attempts to argue that "Pulp Fiction" is strictly a "postmodern" event to be experienced rather than thought much about (the author's grand conclusion: it represents "style over substance"). I didn't even find the book of much use when I wanted some reminders of plot sequence and characters' names. Perhaps I expected too much for my money as a result of reading this same series' "The Birds" by Camille Paglia (who obviously immersed herself in an exhaustive research of the filmmaking process as well as the final product). This edition, on the other hand, has the feel of something tossed out in a couple of week-ends.
Rating:
Summary: Unworthy of its subject.
Review: There's pulp fiction, then there's worse--namely, thin, obvious, breezy commentary that pretends to be scholarly, or at least "academic." This very slight volume wastes time talking about websites dedicated to the film, then attempts to argue that "Pulp Fiction" is strictly a "postmodern" event to be experienced rather than thought much about (the author's grand conclusion: it represents "style over substance"). I didn't even find the book of much use when I wanted some reminders of plot sequence and characters' names. Perhaps I expected too much for my money as a result of reading this same series' "The Birds" by Camille Paglia (who obviously immersed herself in an exhaustive research of the filmmaking process as well as the final product). This edition, on the other hand, has the feel of something tossed out in a couple of week-ends.
Rating:
Summary: Unworthy of its subject.
Review: There's pulp fiction, then there's worse--namely, thin, obvious, breezy commentary that pretends to be scholarly, or at least "academic." This very slight volume wastes time talking about websites dedicated to the film, then attempts to argue that "Pulp Fiction" is strictly a "postmodern" event to be experienced rather than thought much about (the author's grand conclusion: it represents "style over substance"). I didn't even find the book of much use when I wanted some reminders of plot sequence and characters' names. Perhaps I expected too much for my money as a result of reading this same series' "The Birds" by Camille Paglia (who obviously immersed herself in an exhaustive research of the filmmaking process as well as the final product). This edition, on the other hand, has the feel of something tossed out in a couple of week-ends.
Rating:
Summary: not bad but could've been better
Review: this book starts off a tad amateurish as Polan tries to tackle the film as a phenomenon first, and then analyze the actual film second. it seems that the author's initial take is that PULP FICTION is more pre-occupied with style over substance but as the film is analyzed in more detail argues that there is actual depth and substance to Tarantino's film! this comes across as kind of awkward but Polan's writing style does improve the further along you read. i just wish that the author hadn't been so concerned with writing the first academic analysis of PULP FICTION and blasting the slew of sloppily written Tarantino biographies and websites, and focused more on the actual film. i also question Polan's research notes. out of all the articles used/read there is one glaring omission: Gavin Smith's seminal article/interview with Tarantino about PULP FICTION in Film Comment around the time the film came out. Smith's article still remains, in my mind, THE best analysis of Tarantino's film. it's a shame the BFI didn't get him to write one of these books on PF.
<< 1 >>
| 
